Birth control and Christian colleges.

Well, let’s see if we can deal with a couple of issues here quickly.

Did you look at the Hebrew word underlying this Greek translation? It is the word casaph, and means witchcraft, or diviners, such as pagan religions used. I have quickly checked BDB, NIDOTTE, TDOT, and TWOT. None of these standard lexicons give any indication of potions being involved. They all say it is about magic and divining and sorcery. The only major lexicon I haven’t checked is HALOT because I don’t have it here at my office. I am fairly sure it says the same thing.

Continuing on, the context itself isn’t about sexuality. In the 31 verses of Exodus 22, there are 3 that have to do with sex. Two are one command (vv. 16-17); the other has to do with beastiality (v. 19). So less than 10% of that context is “sexuality.” And if you want to widen the context, the percentage becomes less and less.

The context is not one of sexuality, but rather of spiritual harlotry, of false worship … which is exactly what I have said all along. The word here again is casaph, and a quick look at the Hebrew Lexica show no great indication of potions. But even if you grant that a potion is involved, there is no indication that the potion is to prevent pregnancy or to induce abortion. I am skeptical that the science was available back then for that.

But even given your (wrong, IMO) interpretation, why doesn’t it mean using drugs such as alcohol to get him loose and unthinking. That is one of the most common uses of alcohol, even in our modern society. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with pregnancy or abortive drugs. You have read that into it to try to make your point.

Clearly it is figurative, but then you turn around and try to make it literal. You deny your own conclusion in so doing. The passage is figurative; the Hebrew word has no indication of potion; it has rather to do with diviners or magicians, such as we see in Pharaoh’s court, Babylon’s court, Nineveh’s court, and other false religions. They were to be put to death because they were false worshippers who influenced others to worship falsely. It did not have to do with potions.

Again, however, the word is casaph and you have the same problems as before: Not what it means.

Yes, but you have connected them sequentially which is not in the text. And you have chosen to connect just these three, without respect for the fact that the lists contain others that you have no connected. You have, in an attempt to support your point, selectively used the list. That is not good exegesis.

That is clearly not the picture. The picture is that Babylon the harlot has led people astray into false worship … spiritual adultery. It is a figurative use of harlotry and does not need potions to make it work.

Rev 18:6 doesn’t even use the words. The pay back has to do with judgment for sin.

Actually, none of them do. It is much easier just to take the lexical definition. Why do you think no translation and no major commentator that I can find believes what you do? I think it is obvious why … It is not what it means.

 

Many in this thread have agreed (and there has been sites shown) that the birth control pills are indeed not just contraceptive in nature, but also abortifacient, just as are iuds, the ring, etc.... Please look it up in the PDR. It will show that the pill alters the lining of the uterus so that if an egg gets fertilized (which does happen) then the uterus is a hostile place for a baby and many times that baby gets flushed out (aborted!). So, whether or not you agree about the Bible's view of birth control, any birth control that kills a baby is NOT acceptable in the Bible....

 

That is not an altogether correct statement. If you have a Doctor that has a correct view of the sanctity of human life, there are several products on the market and indeed most of the drugs encompassed by the term "the pill" would fall into this category, that actually prevent ovulation, that is the release of an egg by the ovary that is able to be fertilized. There are very few instances where the argument about merely altering the uterine wall is correct, mostly in cases where interaction with other drugs causes a failure of the contraception.

I think we would all agree that any drug which is abortifacient would be contrary to scriptural principles, at least if it was taken for that purpose, but to connect the various scriptures that have been used on this thread to condemn any form of "family planning" or even chemical/biological means of preventing the fertilization of an egg is extrabiblical at best, and a matter of individual soul liberty at worst.

We are all responsible for our choices, and honestly, God is capable of overriding any of man's means or methods of planning. We have to be certain that our practices align with Biblical principles, and let God deal with the rest.

I know at least 3 couples who became pregnant while taking contraceptive precautions. Praise the Lord!

 

Doctor's don't bother to tell the WHOLE truth about this either. I'd like to see a class action suit among Christian couples who have been misled into believing this lie....

I've said before that I had an IUD back in 1971-73 because the ob-gyn on the Army base told me it blocked the sperm from entering, making contact (he drew me a picture... I had the s shaped IUD which was to block the sperm in 3 separate areas) and fertilizing the egg. Studies now show that that is not always true. I was 21 and either he outright lied or he was lied to by the supplier.

I agree that Christian colleges should offer (maybe even require) courses which explain how these different methods work. One would think someone going into the ministry should be fully aware!

 

diane, I agree, a course should be taught at least outlining the different methods and what they actually do. Great post!!!

 

But my point is that once again you are defining things in such a way as to point only to your conclusion. As I have pointed out, that is illegitimate. The context is a series of commands that have nothing really do to with each other per se. V. 18, the verse in question, is no more connected to vv. 16-17 then vv. 16-17 are connected to v. 15 and prior.

If you define hte context as vv. 14-17, the context is borrowing things ... In other words, the context is not defined as you define it. These commands are not related to the ones previous and following.

Yes. most likely. That was never disputed.

Probably ... that was never disputed.

 

Daine:

Excellent point! That is at the heart of this entire discussion regarding birth control/children.

In the "Information Age" in which we live, it does seem as though we are kept ignorant of many facts in this area.

Perhaps someone knows of a good web site that addresses ALL of the side affects of "Birth Control" in all forms.

 

Pastor Larry says:
"I think I have." "I think you" "I have" "I think " and several other "I" statements. Sounds like you also need to see the optomitrist for your "I" problem. You surely have trouble keeping Paul's words straight too.

Wow, this seems really familiar. Hmmm, oh yes, "Cogito ergo sum"

 

Actually, Pastor Larry,

It is NOT "out of bounds" for Paul to apply the use of the word "farmakeia" to the use of any kind of poisonous drugs beyond the use associated with pagan worship practices. (Actually, it can be very successfully argued from the history of witchcraft from multiple cultures to include Paul's application, as those persons that mixed the drugs for pagan worship also provided them for other applications, including medicine in general...the entire idea of the tribal shaman derives from that very practice). I did some research into the use of the word itself in Greco-Roman culture. According to the History of Pharmacy Museum itself, the use of drugs in Greco-Roman culture was twofold: medicine and poison. These medicines could be used for a variety of purposes, varying from medicinal use to assassination of a rival or murder. Additionally, the earliest "pharmacists" were in fact the local boondaloogoo's that provided traditional homoepatheic remedies themselves. Surely, this would include those used to induce a miscarriage. You are limiting the use of the word to a very modern understanding of sorcery. There is another word in Greek that limits sorcery to the black arts/magic arts alone, magia. That word is NOT the word used. If the word was limited in the manner in which you seek to limit it, Larry, then we would expect the more narrow word choice here, but instead, you find the broader word.

Your logic is also flawed. You write, "Actually, the root of pharmokos is used a fourth time (Rev 18:23) and denies your usage of it. There, it is clearly connected with worship." Well, using that same logic, we could say that the sexual immorality of homosexual acts in Romans 1 is limited to temple rituals, which is a key point in progay theology. It would inconsistent to limit drug use to that associated with worship only (a very modern understanding of sorcery) and not limit the prohibition on homosexual acts in Romans 1 as well. The text Paul is using can very clearly be applied to abortive drugs...or, for that matter, any form of poisoning, which is murder.

 

Paul has been making up definitions with respect to the OT word used. The NT usage in Rev is virtually unanimously agreed on as being involved in pagan practices of false worship. No one that I have found gives any reference to birth control drugs.

Apples and oranges in a huge way. When Paul said that all the Revelation usages were connected with sexual immorality (I think that was his point from the last page), he was wrong. Rev 18 does not have to do with sexual immorality. Nor it is connected with murder. The problem with your Romans 1 analogy is that Rev very clearly talks about false worship; Rom 1 says nothing about temple worship. There, Paul talks about nature.

 

These are the kinds of words you use when you are acknowledging that you are giving your own opinion which may be flawed. I don't have the final word on this. I was giving my opinion and my understanding of the text. Therefore, I presented it that way. I don't have an I problem. I wanted to make clear that I was speaking for myself, not for anyone else. You should try it, rather than assumign that your word is the final word.

 

Paul has been making up definitions with respect to the OT word used. The NT usage in Rev is virtually unanimously agreed on as being involved in pagan practices of false worship. No one that I have found gives any reference to birth control drugs.

Apples and oranges in a huge way. When Paul said that all the Revelation usages were connected with sexual immorality (I think that was his point from the last page), he was wrong. Rev 18 does not have to do with sexual immorality. Nor it is connected with murder. The problem with your Romans 1 analogy is that Rev very clearly talks about false worship; Rom 1 says nothing about temple worship. There, Paul talks about nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Gene responds to first paragraph: I think you're divorcing the word from its overall context. First, any reference to what people think as a majority is just an appeal to tradition and an appeal to the popular: Logical fallacies.

Secondly, we must ask ourselves what anybody that heard the word "farmakeia" would think of in the mindset of the original recipients. These were Greco-Roman people under persecution from Rome. The history of the term itself denotes the use of poisons. You seek to limit that to "black magic." However, I stand by Paul in his interpretation, simply because the limiting term for "black arts" is mageia NOT farmekia. You are applying your modern day sensibilities to a first century text, Larry. It is a modern understanding of the word "sorcery" to think "black magic" and "pagan worship."


Gene responds to second paragraph. I think you've missed the point. Romans 1 is a play on the words "natural" and "unnatural." Man, in his sin has exchanged the "natural" (which is worship of God) and called it "natural," which is idolatry. From God's standpoint what man, in his sinful state says is "natural" is, in reality very "unnatural." If we follow your logic in limiting words meaning and application then the only idolatry that is pertinent in Romans one is totem worship, the worship of false gods. No, the point of Romans 1 is that all sin is ultimately idol worship, the idol is oneself. The picture of the homosexual sins in Romans 1 is, in fact, a very detailed look at Roman sex orgies in their temples, a concrete example of the way that man worships himself as god and rejects god. From there, Paul goes on to say basically that idol worship is not confined to such practices, and that as Calvin rightly said, "the human heart is an idol factory."

The Revelation sin lists would certainly have the same meaning. You are severely limiting the application of the sin lists. You say that no one you have found would extend the word to the use of abortive drugs. Okay, fair enough. However, I believe you will find plenty of Christian drug counselors that will not limit farmekeia's use to simply witchcraft and will tie implicitly to drug use. Greco-Roman apothecaries also made the drugs for temple worship, as well as medicine, as well as assassination, and they also made drugs for recreation. They were ancient drug dealers, Larry. The History of Pharmacy Museum tells us this, as well as the historical development of witchcraft. They did it ALL, so when we see the word 'farmakeia' we would do well to consider that. That is all that Paul is trying to argue. You're hung up on the black arts, when, in point of fact the word goes far beyond it. You are limiting the application of the word severely.

 

Actually, it was an appeal to the educated. These are the people who are Greek scholars who have studied the language. They are not armchair theologians, trying to support a point on an internet forum. It is not an appeal to tradition or the popular. It is a citation of the experts.

They would have thought of magic arts and pagan rituals. They most certainly would not have thought of birth control. Brown says "Potions include poisons, but there has always been a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for spells, and also for encouraging the presence of spirits at magical ceremonies" (NIDNTT, 2:558). These things are relatively easy to find.

This question, in and of itself, dispells any notion that birth control might be in the picture. No one then would have thought of it.

As for Romans 1, it is not a discussion of sex practices in worship. It is discussion of how many has rejected God and his laws and instead gone his own way. The sin lists of Romans 1 are great examples of why Paul's interpretation of Rev lists is incorrect. The items in the list are not connected to each other. That is a very strange way of understandin the text, and is driven by the need to find something in it, not by the text itself. Just let the lists stand.

I am not limiting the application of the word severely. I am saying that it has a meaning and we should stick with that meaning. You cannot attach every meaning of word to every usage. A word only has one meaning in a context.

Simply put, the attempt to prove birth control wrong by the use of pharmakeia in Rev 22 is a failure. It simply will not work.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:
[unnecessary attack on individuals snipped - show "grace" and not badmouthing others, please]

[ October 31, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Ok Dr. Bob.

Well said Paul.

 

Yes, there are three meanings given, but you have not represented the entire story. On page 854, there is the following

pharmakeia
pharmakeus
pharmakeuo
pharmakon
pharmakos

Rev 9:21 is listed under pharmakeia -- magic arts and under pharmakon -- magic potion, charm
Rev 18:23 is listed under pharmakeia -- sorcery, magic
Rev 21:8 is listed under pharmakeuo -- mixer of poisons, magician; and under pharmokos -- magician
Rev 22:15 is listed under pharmakos -- magician.

None of these Revelation uses is listed under medicine, remedy, or drug. In fact, there are not NT uses of the word in such a way.

Do you see a pattern here? Every single instance in REvelation is listed under the idea of magic. The potions used in magic are well known to be drugs, but they are used for the purpose of the magic arts, of religious potions and spells. And that is how every translation treats it, and is what I have said from the beginning. YOu kept going down a wrong road, and appealing to BAGD really shoots yourself in the foot, BAGD says what I have said. The potions in question are not used to abort babies.

No, not at all. That is what I have said from teh beginning here. You have tried to make it a reference to drugs, but as the lexicon you cited shows, the reference is to magic arts, not to drugs, remedy, or medicine.

No, you are taking one definition and insisting on that meaning. There are other definitions, and the lexicons are in agreement against you. The word can mean that; it does not mean that. Any inclusion of the idea of drugs seems to be directly connected to the idea of false worship and magic arts.

And abortifacient drugs are considered birth control. But even at that, Rev does not have abortive drugs in mind in its use of the term.

I am not misrepresenting the discussion at all. I have already said that I agree with you on abortive drugs. I have not distorted anything you have said. The issue here is not whether all birth control or abortive birth control is in view in REvelation. The point is that neither is in view.

And you didn't need to. I know what your point is. I am demonstrating that your point is wrong. These verses have nothing to do with any kind of birth control. They have do with false worship, magic arts, or sorcery.

I am not sure how else to say that. I have pretty much said the same thing all the way through. Now you have brought BAGD into the discussion and in so doing have demonstrated that my position is the one held by BAGD; your's is not.